I see alot of discussions about who was top 10 ten ATG or who wasn't, and was just wondering on what basis do you rate fighters?
Printable View
I see alot of discussions about who was top 10 ten ATG or who wasn't, and was just wondering on what basis do you rate fighters?
Opposition, the way they beat opposition, record, titles, how long they reigned for etc
Ok, so do you rate a KO over a points victory? I think the length of reign automatically puts Joe Louis at the top but the opposition would place him lower down. How about now with so many titles should that still be included?Quote:
Originally Posted by Snakey
No criticisms just interested to hear your views :)
I use:
Quality of opposition
Length of World Class career
Redemption
Then is intangibles like
Originality and poineering qualites
Iconic status
Impact on boxing history (all of them can be connected)
Then to break ties; I bias
Ring Generalship
Technical ability
Impact on society; then if still level
The most crowd pleasing style ;)
Id say Joe Louis fought some bums but he fought only the people who were available to him. You cant fight a great fighter...who isnt in that era. A ko victory would place put them higher i guess, really it would depend on the kind of points victory and the way they knocked them out. Eg if a guy was gettin beat most of the fight and then came back and koed the guy then that wouldnt rank as high as a dominant ko and if someone was schooled for 12 rounds like winky/tito then that might rank as high as a dominant ko. Its complicated, youd have to watch fights and see how well they beat them.Quote:
Originally Posted by zacbox
Hey Britkid, just wondering what you mean by redemption? Also with some of your intangibles does that mean Tyson can be included?
So with quality of opposition Louis could only fight what was around, which was fair enough, but this is often a marker for all ATG. Should it be counted?
In that case Ali would probably be top of heavies, but he had flaws in other areas.
How about how they would compete against champs from other eras. Should this be included?
I think another criterion should be, very simply, when you watch a guy is he any good?
By redemption, I mean to redeem yourself. e.g. Archie Moore gets knockdown six times, by Yvon Durelle, but recovers and wins the fight. Or Lennox Lewis to Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman, but comes back to win the rematches.Quote:
Originally Posted by zacbox
And because of the intangibles, Mike Tyson can be placed in the all-time top 100, but I would not consider him an all-time Great.
Yes; we cannot change history, Louis simply did not fight the quality of opposition Ali did, thus that goes against him...Quote:
Originally Posted by zacbox
I try not use that when working out my lists. It is simply unfair, boxing has evolved; how can you rate a Bob Fitzsimmons against a modern fighter on ability and technique?Quote:
Originally Posted by zacbox
But everyone has their own criterion, there is no right or wrong here, lists like this, are purely subjective.
I agree to an extent, but i've haven't seen much of a host of boxers from the early part of last century, Seems abit unfair to discount them on that. For fighters now sure, but at the moment is PBF an ATG, I think he's good but not ATG yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
LOL, that statement is being subjective over a subjective point ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by greynotsoold
I like the idea of redemption, certainly takes into account heart, but does that leave a question mark against their chin?
I think it is purely subjective, but surely there must be some areas where there are common agreement, otherwise how the hell is an ATG agreed on?? :)
But length of world class career, would take chin into question. If you are a world class fighter, fighting world class opposition for 10 years, your chin, at the very least was adequate.Quote:
Originally Posted by zacbox
As for what an All time great is; it is purely subjective, you cannot agree on criteria, because something like this is purely opinion. All you can do is question the criteria, and decide for yourself, weather the answer you get is fair.
Good point Britkid. But say for example Lennox Lewis, although he had a very successful career there remains for some a question mark against his chin, regardless of the length of time he was at the top.
Although I agree it is purely opinion, there must be something in common that sees the same names placed in these lists.
I think quality of opposition has to be taken into account, but is that outweighed by beating who is available to fight?
Also length of reign is a factor, but although Holmes had a long reign he is perhaps not as high as would be expected.
Could you say why Foreman is an ATG? and Tyson is perhaps not? Or even Liston? Also should heavies be rated as highly as the lower weights.
This isn't just directed at you Britkid ;)
Foreman goes over Tyson on my list, because he is virtually the same in iconic status, if not slightly higher. He had same explosive point in his career, over roughly same period of time 70 though 74, compared to Tyson's 85 to 89. The opposition is comparable, Tyson met more B level fighters, but in Joe Frazier and Ken Norton, Foreman met and beat opposition that were better than anything Tyson fought in the time period.
But what swings it, is Foreman has redemption. He redeemed himself on November 5th 1994, by being only the fourth man to regain the World Heavyweight Championship, nearly 22 years after first winning it, at the age of 45. Thus wiping out the demons of the Rumble in the Jungle.
You could argue the first paragraph and give the slight edge to Tyson, but IMO the second paragraph blows Tyson away, he simply has not done anything like that in his entire career, indeed no one has.
Britkid correct me if im wrong, im not big on my 80s boxing trivia but i wouldnt say tyson fought in a strong era. I look at his record and theres alot of guys no one would of heard of and a lot of bums.
That is a tough question to answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snakey
Tyson pretty much cleaned up (with the big exception of Witherspoon; which was not Mike's fault) the fighters collectively known as the 'Lost Generation'
Every Lost Generation fighter, had talent, but for whatever reason (normally drugs), blew their chance to make it, when it mattered.
I agree with everything you said although I would still rate Tyson as an all time great according to your intangibles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Britkid
Quite simply nobody has blown ordinary opponents away as aggressively as Tyson. Watch even Liston's and Foremans fights and they just don't look nearly as frightening as Tyson. Not saying they weren't as big punchers but Tysons style was unique and thats why he will go down in history as the baddest man ever to step into the ring.
I loved watching Sam Peter destroy Julius Long this week. That was how Tyson dealt with virtually every opponent in the 80's.